Informative definition of "GOD"
Man customarily defines "God" as "the Being perfect in wisdom, power and goodness whom people worship as creator and ruler of the universe."
Let's adjust that definition minutely.
No effect can exist without a cause.
Consequently, nothing can exist in the absence of creation.
This physical universe exists and, therefore, is the result of creation.
Source of that creation is obviously infinite in wisdom and power with regard to the physical universe, and reflects total truth of the physical universe, and in infinite wisdom is also infinite in what man would consider goodness. So, let's call source of that creation "God."
Therefore, if we define God as "source of creation of the physical universe, infinite in wisdom, power and goodness," we have a slightly different definition than what man customarily uses, but we have an accurate definition of what we can call God.
Accordingly, we can intelligently and truthfully say God exists.
Re: Informative definition of "GOD"
Quote:
Originally posted by FKITLETSGO
No effect can exist without a cause.
Then eventually infinite regression must be faced and, if your assertion is to be taken as truth, there was no beginning whatsoever. In reality (and this is my opinion) AT LEAST one effect *must* exist without a cause...that being the *TRUE* first effect. Furthermore, is it not a rather bold step to assume that only creation can affect an effect by affecting a cause? Good stuff though...i love this shit.
Time is only a one dimension
The Universe exists within possibly thousands of dimensions or maybe just a few but the one thing I do know is that time is only one dimension and not a gauge of creation nor cause and effect. If there is truely a Higher being such as GOD then time doesn't effectively bring to light either of these questions.
Re: Time is only a one dimension
Quote:
Originally posted by FKITLETSGO
time is only one dimension and not a gauge of creation nor cause and effect.
Where's symatech when you need him? I thought the consensus among physicists the world over was that time is only a derivative of cause and effect...ie, "time" (itself a construction) is nothing more than a connected series of cause and effect and without C&E, that which we have labeled "time" ceases to exist. Of course, i was humanities all the way, so this stuff is out of my league...the physics and such, not so much the theology.
Re: Re: Informative definition of "GOD"
Quote:
Originally posted by BigGreen
Then eventually infinite regression must be faced and, if your assertion is to be taken as truth, there was no beginning whatsoever. In reality (and this is my opinion) AT LEAST one effect *must* exist without a cause...that being the *TRUE* first effect. Furthermore, is it not a rather bold step to assume that only creation can affect an effect by affecting a cause? Good stuff though...i love this shit.
exactly - or to use the vernacular of today - for there to be a matrix there must also be a reality within which the matrix (or matrixis) exist - a singularity of true existence
Broncojosh - obviously reason is not of neccessity at emnity with faith - but it is also true that it is clearly designed to be on a lower order of service to us - without faith it is impossible to please God
FKIT - I smell whoredom - but it is cleverly perfumed ;)
Re: Informative definition of "GOD"
Even if time has a different meaning to god there still must be a explenation to how he came into existanse:unsure:
and one thing about time. Without cause and effect time might not be possible to messure, but if time doesnt exist in itself then what determines the order of the effects?
So time must imo be a dimension as real as the other 3 dimension and not just something we have made upp...
Without matter or energy space can not be messured, but surely we dont say that space is just a construction of the humand mind:unsure:
I hope my little attempt to sound inteligent made any sense:D
Re: Re: Informative definition of "GOD"
Quote:
Originally posted by johan
Even if time has a different meaning to god there still must be a explenation to how he came into existanse:unsure:
Not really. He never "came into" existence, He has always been. More specifically, as described in the Bible, He says of Himself as an identifier (something that makes one unique and recogniseable against all others) I am - that denotes continuously being in the current moment - for God there is no past or future but all is present.
Interestingly, we know via physics that energy cannot be created or destroyed and all mass is energy, ergo - all energy (and mass) is a dirivation from the singularity (which we call God) - this helps understand His omnipresence. Through quantum physiscs we also understand that energy (a quark) can be in two places at the same time, also assisting with the idea of God being outside of time (or rather time exisiting within God)
Re: Re: Re: Informative definition of "GOD"
Quote:
Originally posted by CYCLEON
Not really. He never "came into" existence, He has always been. More specifically, as described in the Bible, He says of Himself as an identifier (something that makes one unique and recogniseable against all others) I am - that denotes continuously being in the current moment - for God there is no past or future but all is present.
Interestingly, we know via physics that energy cannot be created or destroyed and all mass is energy, ergo - all energy (and mass) is a dirivation from the singularity (which we call God) - this helps understand His omnipresence. Through quantum physiscs we also understand that energy (a quark) can be in two places at the same time, also assisting with the idea of God being outside of time (or rather time exisiting within God)
I have a very hard time trying to accept that something has just always been, deep down it feels SO wrong. The whole concept if god beeing in all times at the same time is just so hard to comprehend.
Accepting a higher power that exists in all times feels so wrong because what would its purpose be? It would also mean our sense of time is bullshit and time realy dont pass as we understand it. How would that beeing "think" if time has no meaning to him.
My idea of time is that it is a medium through wich actions takes effect. If I hit a ball then without time the ball would not be able to move. So therefor time must be something IMO and we cant just claim that some power/force exists outside of time(or time existing inside of that beeing). That would seems as impossible to say as something existes outside of space.
But offcoruse this is just the limits my mind sets...:unsure:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Informative definition of "GOD"
[QUOTE]Originally posted by johan
[B]I have a very hard time trying to accept that something has just always been, deep down it feels SO wrong. The whole concept if god beeing in all times at the same time is just so hard to comprehend.
=========================
Some folks say all the stuff in the universe has always been here, and wasn't created by a 'god.' Others say the universe wasn't always here, and had to have been created by 'God.' What the "others" don't explain is where "God" came from . . . seems to reason that if (1) the universe had to have a creator, then God would have needed a creator as well, and (2) If God could have always "just existed" then so could the universe as well.
As far as I can tell, the origin of the universe is a bit too much for human minds to comprehend, sorta like asking an amoeba to understand nuclear physics. Ain't gonna happen. Ergo, seems to me that the best answer to a lot of these sort of questions is just, "Well bucky, I just don't know." Better than making something up and beleiving it . . .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Informative definition of "GOD"
Quote:
Originally posted by Tock
As far as I can tell, the origin of the universe is a bit too much for human minds to comprehend, sorta like asking an amoeba to understand nuclear physics. Ain't gonna happen. Ergo, seems to me that the best answer to a lot of these sort of questions is just, "Well bucky, I just don't know." Better than making something up and beleiving it . . . [/B]
Well but we can not either just give upp and stop the search for a answere to those question. I think that when the human race accepts that something is beyond our capability to understand then we will stop progressing. The search for knowledge is the most important thing the human race is involved in imo. Its what sets us apart from other animals. Our curiosity must never be held back.
I would rather se that scientist over and over makes upp theoris because someday they will make upp the right one and then we finaly know.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Informative definition of "GOD"
Quote:
Originally posted by johan
Well but we can not either just give upp and stop the search for a answere to those question. I think that when the human race accepts that something is beyond our capability to understand then we will stop progressing. The search for knowledge is the most important thing the human race is involved in imo. Its what sets us apart from other animals. Our curiosity must never be held back.
I would rather se that scientist over and over makes upp theoris because someday they will make upp the right one and then we finaly know.
=====================
True true true . . .
Only caveat here is that folks don't go making conclusions or assumptions based on incomplete information. Happens a lot . . .
Best we can hope for, really, is to say that "due to these findings, subject to new information, we now think the universe is the result of ___ ."
